why can't we have a relationship with other men?

[1robin]

I am mainly interested in whether or not you accept macro evolution, and the claim that humans and chimps share a common ancestor. Most experts accept those two claims, including the vast majority of Christian experts.

Let me caution you a little here. This is where I usually debate and you will not have much impact in this subject. I am well versed in these issues. I am also very rigorous about it. If you wish to challenge me on the rational belief that the universe almost certainly requires a God to produce what we have we must go back to the start and proceed chronologically. I will answer but without all the preceding momentum these arguments loose a little impact. I do not say macro evolution never happened I only say the belief that it did is faith based not evidence based. Sciences own method requires an observable or repeatable example be witnessed or it is not a scientific fact. This particular idea neither side can claim or offer proof of any kind. The Bible says that things change within their kind. That is what we see. That may indicate that cross species evolution is not possible and the fact that they can't breed is indicative of that. I make no absolute claims but lean towards no species evolves into another but I am open to further data but there never will be an observable occurrence of this. It is too slow (or that is the terrible theory). No, most Christian scientists do not agree and many secular ones have terrible reservations about it. Even if true that is only a refutation of one interpretation of one claim in one book of the Bible. Until there is an observable example it has no possibility of resolution to the status of fact.

Do you believe that the flagellum is an example of irreducible complexity?

I do believe in the theory of irreducible complexity. It is very simple and extremely logical. There is no theoretical counter to the principle but actual counter examples are assumed to exist. I disagree. I would not necessarily say this is an example of it but it probably is. I know the counter claim to this example is that there is a lesser complex example of a component that has similar parts but that is not in any way an argument against IC. If I said that there is no known principle in natural law that can explain how unbeneficial arrangements of constituent parts would survive is not countered by claiming you found a less complex but functional arrangement of similar parts in another organism. You simply found another less complex but still irreducible similar biological machine. To really tear into this we would have to examine divergent and convergent evolutionary principles, survivable mutation rates. You are kind of starting in the middle which is not the way to go about this. If you wish to continues this line or discussion let's start from the start. The merit of certain theories and lines of thought are greatly affected by the preceding dynamics built up along the way. I would not be interested in hoping around from this concept to the other but am interested in starting from the beginning and building upwards. If interested I have a question. Is what you will defend the claim that God does not exist and what we actually know could have arisen without God?

 

[1robin]

Oh? Demonstrate, 'cause from what I've seen, political correctness seems equally prevalent among all political viewpoints.

This is getting a little far afield. Politics will not help much here. However I will respond. My side of the fence is the fundamental conservative side. It is made up primarily of Christians or people who hold very similar ideas. The number one complaint of this side is the dismissal of tried and true traditional values (we conserve them) and is being replaced by a liberal (basically means anything goes) dogma and values. The number one reason we believe this is happening is that the media has established the narrative and determined what can and can't be talked about and how it must be talked about (political correctness). In the past we drew the neutral people to our side but in the modern fast paced society people only have five minutes to catch the news and is told what they wish to be true. An example of this is Obama will not call terrorism, terrorism. He has officially declared that terrorist acts are man disasters. He also officially calls new taxes revenue enhancement or something like that. There are sites that have lists of the lefts restructured language use. It is a constant complaint of the right not a practice of the right. Of course there are a few exceptions but that is very true in general. Was this an answer to your claims?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

This is getting a little far afield. Politics will not help much here. However I will respond. My side of the fence is the fundamental conservative side. It is made up primarily of Christians or people who hold very similar ideas. The number one complaint of this side is the dismissal of tried and true traditional values (we conserve them) and is being replaced by a liberal (basically means anything goes) dogma and values. The number one reason we believe this is happening is that the media has established the narrative and determined what can and can't be talked about and how it must be talked about (political correctness). In the past we drew the neutral people to our side but in the modern fast paced society people only have five minutes to catch the news and is told what they wish to be true. An example of this is Obama will not call terrorism, terrorism. He has officially declared that terrorist acts are man disasters. He also officially calls new taxes revenue enhancement or something like that. There are sites that have lists of the lefts restructured language use. It is a constant complaint of the right not a practice of the right. Of course there are a few exceptions but that is very true in general. Was this an answer to your claims?

Yeah, but conservatives are big doo-doo heads who make love to farm animals and eat old cheese in the middle of the night. Everyone knows this to be obviously true. In fact, a group of like a bajillion scientists wrote a scathing criticism of conservatism which cannot be argued against by mere mortals. They proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that conseratives pick their noses with toothpicks on a daily basis. Anyone who is educated on the subject realizes that these facts cannot even be debated.

 

[Agnostic75]

Why do you think that a healthy homosexual makes homosexuality ok?

Better stated, why do you think that homosexuality is not appropriate for healthy, monogamous homosexuals?


How in the world do healthy, monogamous homosexuals harm anyone? How is any action not appropriate if it does not harm anyone?


If an individual homosexual is monogamous, and healthy, he is not wrong, or immoral since he is not harming anyone. If anything, he is setting a good example for other homosexuals. Why should such homosexuals practice abstinence for life?

If 20% of Muslims were terrorists, would you criticize all Muslims? If 20% of Buddhists
were thieves, would you criticize all Buddhists?

There have been tens of millions (probably) billions that resisted these same urges that had no ill effects.

Please post evidence that supports that claim. I think that you are way off.

Regarding people who have practiced abstinence for life, the vast majority of them probably did so for religious reasons. That means that you have little to offer non-religious homosexuals. It is well-known that reparative therapy works best by far for religiously motivated people, and often fails even for them.


It is often very difficult to accurately assess the physical and emotional health of people who practice abstinence for life. Surely many such people had a very hard time practicing abstinence for life.


Common sense indicates that what some people can endure, many other people cannot without having serious physical, and emotional consequences. You are not in a position to judge what every homosexual should endure.

I deny it is a medical problem. If I was a medical professional I would discuss that side of things. I am not.......

But if only experts made posts at these forums, there would hardly be anyone here. I believe that you are avoiding quoting experts since you know that it would be difficult for you to provide reasonable proof that homosexuality is caused 100% by environmnent. As far as spiritual problems are concerned, science does not deal with spiritual problems. In additions, some religions do not oppose homosexuality.

.......and the issue is irrelevant to the morality of the practice.

Whose morality? From what source? How can any action be immoral that does not harm other people? Who do healthy, monogamous homosexuals harm? Why should they practice abstinence, which would offer no possible benefits, and many possible physical and emotional problems?

Having any sex at all is a choice made by countless people. Once again that is an absurd rationalization for what has no rationalization. The same could be said for pre-marital sex. I have given in to that temptation when I was younger but I would never say anything as absurd as that I had no choice. That is just ridiculous.

But pre-marital sex cannot be compared with abstinence for life, and never knowing the joys of having sex with someone who you love, and kissing them, and gently touching them, and having someone to live with, and share your hopes and dreams with.


I speculate that less than 1% of humans have practiced abstinence for life, and that the vast majority of people who did did so for religious reasons, and that a lot of them suffered a good deal from sexual frustration. The CDC, and all other major medical organizations, and the majority of people in the Western world, do not believe that abstinence for life is a reasonable thing to demand for homosexuals.

I think that the wackiest claim that you have made in this thread was your claim that since homosexuals who have certain health problems are immoral, all homosexuals are immoral. That is really wacky, just as wacky as saying that if 20% of Muslims are terrorists, all Muslims are immoral.

Your post #304 is full of lies, and misleading claims. If you believe a lot of what you quoted, that explains why you believe that the entire population of homosexuals are much worse off as a group than they are. It is very unfair to homosexuals for you to quote large amounts of questionable claims that you want to believe, not claims that you have checked out. A couple of examples are the lifespan of homosexuals, and NAMBLA.

 

[tumbleweed41]

. Here is one of the world most respected and degreed philosophers presenting a poem on modern morality and it is infinitely more accurate than anything you said:

“Creed,” his satirical poem on the modern mind. Taken from Ravi Zacharias’ book Can Man live Without God? Pages 42-44

Really"
Ravi Zacharias is hardly the "worlds most respected and degreed philosophers". He is an evangelical Christian apologist who believes that homosexual acts are an “aberration” and “violation” of human sexuality and that while some people may have a homosexual “disposition,” they are not justified in expressing that disposition.
[youtube]CIw6ngIqaD0[/youtube]
Acceptance of Homosexuality in Christianity-Ravi Zacharias
And your poem is from a Rock and Roll biographer and poet, hardly representative of the current discussion.

 

[Agnostic75]

My side of the fence is the fundamental conservative side. It is made up primarily of Christians or people who hold very
similar ideas. The number one complaint of this side is the dismissal of tried and true traditional values (we conserve them) and is being replaced by a liberal (basically means anything goes) dogma and values.

What traditional values are you referring to? What does "anything goes" mean, and what percentage of Democrats accept "anything goes"?

There is not a necessary correlation between the truth, and what system of beliefs works the best on a given planet in the universe.

The truth exists independent of the actions, or beliefs, of humans, or aliens, and existed before there were any humans, or aliens.

New Zealand is pretty liberal, used to be number one on the global peace index, is now number two or three, has a small national debt, allow gays to join the military, grants most of the rights that heterosexuals have to homosexuals, and has a much lower crime rate than the U.S. does.

Whatever your answers are, please start a new thread, and keep this one for your claim that all homosexuality is immoral, including homosexuality among monogamous homosexuals.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Yeah, but conservatives are big doo-doo heads who make love to farm animals and eat old cheese in the middle of the night. Everyone knows this to be obviously true. In fact, a group of like a bajillion scientists wrote a scathing criticism of conservatism which cannot be argued against by mere mortals. They proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that conseratives pick their noses with toothpicks on a daily basis. Anyone who is educated on the subject realizes that these facts cannot even be debated.

With toothpicks? Yo. I hope they don't do double duty with them.

 

[Agnostic75]

Is what you will defend the claim that God does not exist and what we actually know could have arisen without God?

My claim is that a God may or may not exist, and that if he does exist, he is a deistic kind of God, and has never inspired any religious writings. However, I am not interested in endless debates about religion. I have already done that for years. For purposes of this thread, my main interest is your claim that all homosexuality is immoral, even among healthy, monogamous homosexuals. Your post #304 has so many false, and misleading claims that it is no wonder that you oppose homosexuality as much as you do. Homosexuality among healthy, monogamous homoesxuals is acceptable because it provides significant benefits for those homosexuals, and does not harm anyone else.

If 20% of Muslims were terrorists, would all Muslims be immoral? If 20% of Buddhists were thieves, would all Buddhists be immoral?

There have been tens of millions (probably) billions that resisted these same urges that had no ill effects.

Please post evidence that supports that claim. I think that you are way off.

Regarding people who have practiced abstinence for life, the vast majority of them probably did so for religious reasons. That means that you have little to offer non-religious homosexuals. It is well-known that reparative therapy works best by far for religiously motivated people, and often fails even for them.

It is often very difficult to accurately assess the physical and emotional health of people who practice abstinence for life. Surely many such people had a very hard time practicing abstinence for life.

Common sense indicates that what some people can endure, many other people cannot without having serious physical, and emotional consequences. You are not in a position to judge what every homosexual should endure.

I deny it is a medical problem. If I was a medical professional I would discuss that side of things.

But if only experts made posts at these forums, there would hardly be anyone here. I believe that you are avoiding quoting experts since you know that it would be difficult for you to provide reasonable proof that homosexuality is caused 100% by environmnent. As far as spiritual problems are concerned, science does not deal with spiritual problems. In addition, some religions do not oppose homosexuality.

.......and the issue is irrelevant to the morality of the practice.

Whose morality? From what source? How can any action be immoral that does not harm other people? Who do healthy, monogamous homosexuals harm? Why should they practice abstinence, which would offer no possible benefits, and many possible physical and emotional problems?

Having any sex at all is a choice made by countless people. Once again that is an absurd rationalization for what has no rationalization. The same could be said for pre-marital sex. I have given in to that temptation when I was younger but I would never say anything as absurd as that I had no choice.

But not having pre-marital sex cannot be compared with abstinence for life, and never knowing the joys of having sex with someone who you love, and kissing them, and gently touching them, and having someone to live with, and share your hopes and dreams with, so there is much more to it than just sexual actions.

The CDC, and all other major medical organizations, and the majority of people in the Western world, do not believe that abstinence for life is a reasonable thing to demand for homosexuals. Except for Roman Catholic priests, and nuns, how many people do you know who have practiced abstinence for decades? Probably very few.

 

[Agnostic75]

This is from another thread:

If you think that an 80% rate of success versus a 20% rate of misery and death warrants allowing a practice that has no corresponding gain then it is you that is being preposterous.

But 80% of homosexuals do not have anything to do with HIV. If the 80% of homosexuals who do not have HIV practiced abstinence, that would not affect HIV statistics. The statistics would only have been different if some of the 20% had practiced abstinence.

If there is no solution to a medical problem, no one is to blame. How is abstinence a solution to homosexuality? Percentage wise, few people in the world, with the exception of some religiously motivated people such as Roman Catholic priests, and nuns, would find it appealing to live a life of sexual frustration, a life of loneliness, and not having anyone to share your hopes and dreams with, and to live with. In another thread, you said that tens of millions, maybe billions of people have successfully practiced abstinence for life. However, I assume that you know that you cannot provide reasonable evidence about that. The true figure must be a very small fraction of what you said. Other than Roman Catholic priests, and nuns, how many people do you know who have practiced abstinence for at least 25 years?

The CDC most certainly does not recommend abstinence as an effective way to deal with HIV. Rather, they recommend having safe sex.

In another thread, I asked you would you object to homosexuality if only 1% of homosexuals had HIV. You conveniently refused to answer the question. Here is what was said:

Are you saying that percentages do not matter? If only 1% of homosexuals had HIV, would that make any difference to you compared with 20%? You must have some arbitary percentage of your own in mind or you would never have brought up statistics in the first place.

I am saying that your claims about only 20% have no meaning, application, or relevance to anything. I am not discussing 1% because that is not the case. The case is millions suffer so others can fulfill their lust.

You obviously did not want to discuss 1% since you would have had to admit that you would even object if 1% of homosexuals had HIV. A hundred years ago, no one had HIV, but you still object to homosexuality back then.

A Wikipedia article at List of countries by HIV/AIDS adult prevalence rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia shows the HIV/AIDS rate in many countries. In 2011, for adults aged 15-49, the lowest rate in the world is Afghanistan, with a rate of only 00.01 percent. Second is Australia with a rate of only 00.10 percent. The U.S. has one of the highest rates, with a rate of 00.60 percent. In 2011, there were 1,200,000 documented cases of HIV/AIDS in the U.S. In Australia, there were 18,000. In 2009, 22,523 people in Australia died from ischaemic heart disease alone.

Apparently there are some health problems in the world that are more serious than HIV/AIDS, and with much easier solutions since heart disease can often be easily prevented merely by eating healthier foods, and getting enough exercise. In your opinion, which is easier, to eat healthy foods, and get enough exercise, or to practice abstinence for life?

I will cut and paste this post to the thread on homosexuality where you and I were having some discussions. You can reply to my post there if you wish, and leave this thread to discuss the existence of God.

 

[dgirl1986]

But not having pre-marital sex cannot be compared with abstinence for life, and never knowing the joys of having sex with someone who you love, and kissing them, and gently touching them, and having someone to live with, and share your hopes and dreams with, so there is much more to it than just sexual actions.

It seems to me that people are just purely obsessed with the sexual aspect and like to make all sorts of assumptions relating to that. For some people its just a sex act, which shows a lack in understanding about sexuality and relationships to start with. I should also add that people are way more obsessed with the gay male act than the gay women act.

 

[1robin]

Really"

Ravi Zacharias is hardly the "worlds most respected and degreed philosophers". He is an evangelical Christian apologist who believes that homosexual acts are an “aberration” and “violation” of human sexuality and that while some people may have a homosexual “disposition,” they are not justified in expressing that disposition.
[youtube]CIw6ngIqaD0[/youtube]
Acceptance of Homosexuality in Christianity-Ravi Zacharias
And your poem is from a Rock and Roll biographer and poet, hardly representative of the current discussion.

First Ravi Zacharias did not write that poem.

Second: For 36 years, Ravi Zacharias has spoken all over the world and in numerous universities, notably Harvard, Princeton, and Oxford University. He has addressed writers of the peace accord in South Africa, the president’s cabinet and parliament in Peru, and military officers at the Lenin Military Academy and the Center for Geopolitical Strategy in Moscow. At the invitation of the President of Nigeria, he addressed delegates at the First Annual Prayer Breakfast for African Leaders held in Mozambique.

Dr. Zacharias has direct contact with key leaders, senators, congressmen, and governors who consult him on an ongoing basis. He has addressed the Florida Legislature and the Governor’s Prayer Breakfast in Texas, and has twice spoken at the Annual Prayer Breakfast at the United Nations in New York, which marks the beginning of the UN General Assembly each year. As the 2008 Honorary Chairman of the National Day of Prayer, he gave addresses at the White House, the Pentagon, and The Cannon House. He has had the privilege of addressing the National Prayer Breakfasts in the seats of government in Ottawa, Canada, and London, England, and speaking at the CIA in Washington, DC.

Dr. Zacharias was born in India in 1946 and immigrated to Canada with his family twenty years later. While pursuing a career in business management, his interest in theology grew; subsequently, he pursued this study during his undergraduate education. He received his Masters of Divinity from Trinity International University in Deerfield, Illinois. Well-versed in the disciplines of comparative religions, cults, and philosophy, he held the chair of Evangelism and Contemporary Thought at Alliance Theological Seminary for three and a half years. Mr. Zacharias has been honored by the conferring of a Doctor of Divinity both from Houghton College, NY, and from Tyndale College and Seminary, Toronto, and a Doctor of Laws from Asbury College in Kentucky. He is presently Senior Research Fellow at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford University in Oxford, England.
http://stayintheconversation.org/rzimcanada/biography-ravi-zacharias/

Read plenty more at that site that dispels your silly notion of any lack of competence on Ravi's part. Your critique says more about the one who made it than him. I reject any claim to the effect that being a Christian suggests any incompetence what so ever. The field of science alone owes the actual existence of a great many of its actual fields of study to Christians. Defending the merit of claims equivalent with the obvious fact that the Sun is not made of ice is just tiresome but maybe that is the point.

I do not care if the poem was by Kermit the frog it is an accurate description of the moral trends that the denial of God are leading in the direction of. Sorry I am on a DOD server and can't watch utube.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin: I will number my arguments for easy reference:

Argument #1

If you think that an 80% rate of success versus a 20% rate of misery and death warrants allowing a practice that has no corresponding gain then it is you that is being preposterous.

In some areas of the world, and in some cities in the U.S., the HIV rate among homosexuals is far less than 20%. What are your comments about that? What percentage would you accept?

Argument #2

If the 80% of homosexuals in 21 large American cities who do not have HIV practiced abstinence, that would not do very much to lower the percentage of homosexuals who have HIV. The statistic would only have been noticeably lower if the 20% of homosexuals who have HIV had practiced abstinence. Since most of the 20% are not interested in monogamy (although about half of homosexuals are), they quite naturally would be far less interested in practicing abstinence for life than practicing monogamy. Since the 20% are much less likely to practice abstinence for life than to practice monogamy, it is quite obvious that the 80% would have even less of a chance to influence the 20% to practice abstinence for life than to influence them to practice monogamy. Thus, logically, it would be better for the 80% to try to use monogamy to influence the 20% than abstinence for life. As far as HIV is concerned, two uninfected monogamous homosexuals have almost no risk of getting HIV from each other.

Argument #3

If you care about homosexuality from a secular health perspective, what about all of the heterosexuals who have preventable health problems? One study shows that in the U.S., by 2030, 50% of Americans will be obese, increasing health care costs by over one half of a trillion dollars from obesity alone. Obesity is often preventable, and so are heart disease, problems from smoking cigarettes, and many other health problems. No one who has a serious preventable health problem is in a position to criticize homosexuals, especially monogamous homosexuals, and that would probably include a large percentage of heterosexuals who oppose homosexality. So, you should check out the conservative Christian organizations that oppose homosexuality and tell them that they are hypocrites if they have a serious preventable health problem. Even if their claims about homosexuality were true, they should not be the messenger if they have a serious preventable health problem. Actually, they should not be the messenger if they commit any deliberate sins, such as getting divorced except in cases of adultery, and lusting for someone other than their spouse.

Argument #4

In your opinion, which is easier, eating fewer greasy foods, and getting enough exercise, or practicing abstinence for life?

Argument #5

Stanton Jones, Ph.D., psychology, and Mark Yarhouse, Ph.D., psychology, are conservative Christians. Jones is Prosvost at Wheaton College, and Yarhouse teaches at Pat Robertson's Regent University. They wrote a book about homosexuality that is titled 'Homosexuality, The Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate.' Chapter 4 is titled 'Is homosexuality a psychopathology?' After discussing a lot of scientific issues in that chapter, the authors conclude with the following paragraph:

"Finally, we have seen that there has never been any definitive judgment by the fields of psychiatry or psychology that homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle. But what if it were? Such a judgment would have little bearing on the judgments of the Christian church. In the days of Nero iit was healthy and adaptive to worship the Roman emperor. By contemporary American standards a life consumed with greed, materialism, sensualism, selfishness, divorce and pride is judged healthy, but God weighs such a life and finds it lacking."

Jones and Yarhouse are honest enough to admit that their primary bias is religious no matter what science says, and no matter how healthy homosexuals might be in the future. How about you? A hundred years ago, no one had HIV, and you still object to homosexuality then. Thus, your arguments are a red herring.

Argument #6

You refused to answer my question about what if one 1% of homosexuals had HIV. You refused to answer the question because you did not want to admit that you oppose all homosexuality no matter what. A difference between you, and Jones and Yarhouse, is that they do not mind plainly stating what their position is. A similarity between you and Jones and Yarhouse is that you all merely use science as a convenience when you believe that it agrees with the Bible. That is not true science. Many creationists know very little about biology, but love to quote creationist experts. I do not know very much about biology, and I quote experts who support evolution, but the difference is that accepting the opinions of a very large consensus of Christian and non-Christian experts makes sense for laymen unless there are some good reasons not to. If you think that religion is a good reason not to, just say so.

Argument #7

You claimed that tens of millions, maybe billions of people have practiced abstinece for life. That is patently absurd, and cannot be reasonably documented from any source. Regarding people who practice abstinence for life, it is reasonable to assume that most of them are religiously motivated. That is a reasonable assumption since it is well-known that reparative therapy works best by far for religiously motivated people, and that often, it does not work well even for them. So, you have little to offer non-religious homosexuals.

For the vast majoirty of people, it is not appealing to live an entire life of sexual frustration, no one to touch, to hold, to caress, and to share life with. Romance is a wonderful thing. However humans came about, most of them are not at their best practicing abstinence for life.

Neither the CDC, nor any other major American medical organization, would recommend abstinence for all homosexuals as an effective way to prevent STD's among a minority of homosexuals.

Argument #8

You have claimed that genetics does not have anything to do with homosexuality. First of all, the vast majority of experts do not believe that there is sufficient evidence that homosexuality is caused 100% by environment. Second, the vast majority of children who are raised by homosexuals turn out to be heterosexuals. If homosexuality was caused 100% by environmentwas caused 100% by environment, that would not be the case. Third, when one adult identical twin is a homosexual, the majority of the time, the other twin is a heterosexual. If homosexuality was caused 100% by environment, more identical twins would both be homosexuals since it is well-known that identical twins generally have much more similar environments than non-twin siblings do.

Argument #9

Your post #304 shows how much you have confirmation bias. The post makes lots of false, outrageous claims. There is no way that you know that the majority of those claims are true. You simply look for a conservative Christian website that has the same confirmation bias that you do, and copy what they say regardless of what they say. I do not question your CDC information, but the CDC most certainly does not recommend abstinence for life for all homosexuals just because a minority of homoesxuals have medical problems.

I would like to discuss that post with you in detail. You are not a careful researcher, and you do not care about the misrepresentations of facts.

Argument #10

You have claimed that allowing openly homosexual people to join the military harms unit cohesion, but even the military's own scientific and siociological researchers disagree with you. Scientific and sociological researchers are not influenced by mere claims that allowing gays in the military harms unit cohesion since all that that usually means is that some heterosexual soldiers are bigots, and do not like homosexuals. Rather, they look for obvservable evidence that allowing gays in the military harms unit cohesion. The commandant of the Marine Corps originally opposed the new policy, but changed his mind when he found out that it has generally worked well. I can provide documented research that supports your position, and I have already posted one such link. You have boasted that you can also provide documented research that supports your position, but so far, you have not provided any such evidence.

A letter from 1,000 people who are bigots is not documented, scientific research.

Over 30 countries have allowed gays in their militaries for many years, including Israel for over 20 years. Do you have any reasons to suspect that that policy has not worked well in any of those countries? Many polls in the U.S. have showed that the most outspoken opponents of homosexuality by far are religious conservatives. Such being the case, it is axiomatic that the fewer religious conservatives there are in a country, the less opposition there will be to allowing gays in the military.

Few people have questioned the ability of gay soldiers to do their jobs well. In the recent London olympics, openly gay athletes won seven medals, including four gold medals. The prime minister of Iceland is an open lesbian. So is the prime minsiter of Ontario. Some U.S. congressmen, and one U.S. senator, are openly homoesxual. Same-sex marriage is legal even in some predominalty Roman Catholic countries, such as Spain, and Argentina.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I don't mean like doing orgies and wicked stuff like that. But why can't we make love to people of our gender. I don't get it. I am attracted to men.

If you're attracted to someone of the opposite sex or same sex then orgies aren't out of the question......:drool:

I personally believe men and women are dual nature....so same sex attraction and relationships are natural. It's natural for various species on the planet.....

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to 1robin:

The more repressive a country is, the less likely they are to provide legal rights for homosexuals. Islamic republics are a good example. A Wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_by_country_or_territory shows gay rights by country.


Consider the following chart that is provided:







The countries in red, and orange, have the least gay rights. and are generally not an admirable group of countries. On the other hand, some of the countries that have a good deal of gay rights are Canada, Britain, Israel, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Norway, and Finland.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The thing that makes me laugh about this is that a number of heterosexual couples engage in anal sex also...

This......

 

[1robin]

Message to 1robin:

The more repressive a country is, the less likely they are to provide legal rights for homosexuals. Islamic republics are a good example. A Wikipedia article at LGBT rights by country or territory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia shows gay rights by country.


Consider the following chart that is provided:







The countries in red, and orange, have the least gay rights. and are generally not an admirable group of countries. On the other hand, some of the countries that have a good deal of gay rights are Canada, Britain, Israel, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Norway, and Finland.

This is short so I will respond real quickly. I agree. So what? I think Islam is evil (not all muslims though) so why do I care what they do in this context? Also why is this an argument for or against homosexuality? It does not prove it right or wrong. However this info does.

2012 2 ​

[FONT=Myriad Pro,Myriad Pro][FONT=Myriad Pro,Myriad Pro][FONT=Myriad Pro,Myriad Pro]Some Groups Bear a Disproportionate Burden of STDs [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Myriad Pro,Myriad Pro]
[/FONT][FONT=Myriad Pro,Myriad Pro][FONT=Myriad Pro,Myriad Pro][FONT=Myriad Pro,Myriad Pro]While anyone can become infected with an STD, certain groups, including gay and bisexual men and young people, are at greatest risk. [/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Myriad Pro,Myriad Pro][FONT=Myriad Pro,Myriad Pro][FONT=Myriad Pro,Myriad Pro]Troubling rise in syphilis infections among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Myriad Pro,Myriad Pro]
[/FONT][FONT=Myriad Pro,Myriad Pro][FONT=Myriad Pro,Myriad Pro][FONT=Myriad Pro,Myriad Pro]Trend data available for the first time this year show that men who have sex with men (MSM)* now account for nearly three quarters (72 percent) of all primary and secondary syphilis cases. Primary and secondary syphilis are the most infectious stages of the disease, and if not adequately treated, can lead to visual impairment, stroke, and in rare cases, even death. Surveillance data from several major cities throughout the country indicate that an average of 4 in 10 MSM with syphilis are also infected with HIV. Syphilis infection can place a person at increased risk for HIV infection, or increase an HIV-infected person’s viral load. Given the high prevalence of HIV in the MSM community, increasing syphilis infections among men who have sex with men are particularly troubling. [/FONT]
[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Myriad Pro,Myriad Pro][FONT=Myriad Pro,Myriad Pro][FONT=Myriad Pro,Myriad Pro]http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats11/trends-2011.pdf[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

It is the CDC so I hope appeals to bias are not relied on.
[FONT=Myriad Pro,Myriad Pro][FONT=Myriad Pro,Myriad Pro]
[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Also why is this an argument for or against homosexuality? It does not prove it right or wrong. However this info does.

[FONT=Myriad Pro,Myriad Pro][FONT=Myriad Pro,Myriad Pro][FONT=Myriad Pro,Myriad Pro]Some Groups Bear a Disproportionate Burden of STDs [/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]

Yeah. And brave people are maimed and killed at a much higher rate than cowards.

So you think bravery is wrong -- just because the brave bear a disproportionate burden of injury and death?

That seems weird to me, such thinking.

 

[1robin]

Message to 1robin: I will number my arguments for easy reference:

Argument #1
In some areas of the world, and in some cities in the U.S., the HIV rate among homosexuals is far less than 20%. What are your comments about that?

I think it wrong if no one died. The fact that homosexuals have a significantly lower life span is indicative of this.

The aim of our research was never to spread more homophobia, but to demonstrate to an international audience how the life expectancy of gay and bisexual men can be estimated from limited vital statistics data. In our paper, we demonstrated that in a major Canadian center, life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 21 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality continued, we estimated that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years would not reach their 65th birthday.
Gay life expectancy revisited
That was a pro gay study. Are they prejudiced as well?
Factor in the other diseases along the way and there is no counter argument.

Argument #2
If the 80% of homosexuals in 21 large American cities who do not have HIV practiced abstinence, that would not do very much to lower the percentage of homosexuals who have HIV. The statistic would only have been noticeably lower if the 20% of homosexuals who have HIV had practiced abstinence. As far as HIV is concerned, two uninfected monogamous homosexuals have almost no risk of getting HIV from each other.

Just think what would happen if the Bible's prohibition against homosexuality and promiscuity were both followed. This argument would only have been an argument if there was some way to guarantee that monogamous people would stay monogamous. It is also a little silly to suggest that for example that murder would be ok as long as only bad people were killed. Mitigating the trouble something causes does not make an act right even if it could be guaranteed. Promiscuity stil causes massive problems even after condoms were invented.

Argument #3
If you care about homosexuality from a secular health perspective, what about all of the heterosexuals who have preventable health problems? One study shows that in the U.S., by 2030, 50% of Americans will be obese, increasing health care costs by over one half of a trillion dollars from obesity alone. Obesity is often preventable, and so are heart disease, problems from smoking cigarettes, and many other health problems.

I have answered this twice so far. Gluttony is immoral as well.

Argument #4
In your opinion, which is easier, eating fewer greasy foods, and getting enough exercise, or practicing abstinence for life?

Neither. They are both hard. They are also both right. Most right things are hard. Screwing up is like going downhill.

Argument #5
Stanton Jones, Ph.D., psychology, and Mark Yarhouse, Ph.D., psychology, are conservative Christians. "Finally, we have seen that there has never been any definitive judgment by the fields of psychiatry or psychology that homosexuality is a healthy lifestyle.

This was not an argument. It was a comment that seemed to justify my position but attributes it to bias. I am not defending these guys and do not care why they said what they said. The fact that the practice kills thousands and costs billions is not bias it is a fact. Are you responsible for every argument that a gay person makes? See my argument in #6 for why this does not work.

Argument #6
You refused to answer my question about what if one 1% of homosexuals had HIV. You refused to answer the question because you did not want to admit that you oppose all homosexuality no matter what. If you think that religion is a good reason not to, just say so.

That is just wrong and I can prove it. I am against the practice of homosexuality whether it killed anyone or not for reasons of faith. I believe it immoral, however the fact that it does kill many people is indicative of the fact it is wrong. You grossly misunderstand my position.
1. I believe homosexuality is wrong for Biblical reasons even if no one is harmed.
2. I believe that the fact it cause misery on a grand scale confirms this.
3. The fact that it causes this much damage means it would be wrong with or without God.
Only if it can be shown to be non-harmful and God does not exist would you have a case of any kind from a moral, secular, or theological view point. As it is all three argue against you.

Argument #7
You claimed that tens of millions, maybe billions of people have practiced abstinence for life. That is patently absurd. So, you have little to offer non-religious homosexuals.

That was absurd and I do not remember giving those numbers but there have been countless people who practice abstinence. By this strange argument we should not deny people the pleasure of blissful contentment that heroin provides. Claiming it feels good so it is right is about the worst argument in a long line of bad arguments for your side. I am not required to have a solution to cliam a problem is a problem.

Argument #8
You have claimed that genetics does not have anything to do with homosexuality. First of all, the vast majority of experts do not believe that there is sufficient evidence that homosexuality is caused 100% by environment.

I do not agree and can provide sources if needed but judging from the past you simply do not care or will do anything necessary to shoot the messenger.

Argument #9
Your post #304 shows how much you have confirmation bias. The post makes lots of false, outrageous claims. I would like to discuss that post with you in detail. You are not a careful researcher, and you do not care about the misrepresentations of facts.

The facts at the sources I gave in this post alone are enough to justify my position and they are not biased (unless in your direction). Even if every other fact I have ever given was wrong that would still be true.

Argument #10
You have claimed that allowing openly homosexual people to join the military harms unit cohesion, but even the military's own scientific and sociological researchers disagree with you.

If you want to concentrate on this issue I can give you sources faster than you can invent reasons to ignore them.

A letter from 1,000 people who are bigots is not documented, scientific research.

They were not bigots they were high ranking professional’s whose lives were pledged to give you the right to talk this trash about them and depend on these issues. I resent this garbage characterization of them. I remember why I got out of this thread now. I will not continue a discussion if this type of rabid nonsense is used. Not because it is offensive but because it is absurd. In spite of your ridiculous obfuscation their letter was better than science it was absolute fact. Even if they were bigot's which is stupid it shows undeniably that unit cohesion was affected. It is a fact and all the nonsense you use as truth filter will not change it. I was there. I saw countless good soldiers take early retirement when these liberal issues started to surface when Clinton was in office. When people are dying we do not want to have to worry about who is looking at us in the shower. It is no time for experiments and political correctness when a several hundred thousand tons of extremely lethal ships are heading at us.

 

[1robin]

Yeah. And brave people are maimed and killed at a much higher rate than cowards.

Many cowards are saved because of that bravery. There is justifiable reasons for bravery not homosexuality. I would give up this silly line on non reasoning if I were you. It ain't working and never will.

So you think bravery is wrong -- just because the brave bear a disproportionate burden of injury and death?

Nope

That seems weird to me, such thinking.

I am sure it does.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Many cowards are saved because of that bravery.

Umm... huh? Why would it be a good thing to save cowards?

There is justifiable reasons for bravery not homosexuality.

Actually there is more justifiable reason for homosexuality than for bravery.

I would give up this silly line on non reasoning if I were you. It ain't working and never will.

It has worked just fine to demonstrate that you do not really oppose homosexuality on the grounds of the damage it causes. If you did, you would also oppose bravery.

I'm showing that your real reasons for opposing homosexuality have very little to do with secular matters.